Nick Thornsbyhttp://www.newstatesman.com/writers/nick_thornsby
enhttp://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/why-miliband%E2%80%99s-tax-move-good-news-lib-dems
<div class="field field-name-field-subheadline field-type-text-long field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The Labour leader&#039;s speech has reminded voters of two distinctive and popular Lib Dem policies: increasing the personal allowance and introducing a mansion tax.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-node-image field-type-image field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><figure class="clearfix field-item even"><img typeof="foaf:Image" class="image-style-fullnode-image" src="http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/styles/fullnode_image/public/articles_2013/152696332.jpg?itok=g9r2kItb" width="510" height="348" alt="Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Business Secretary Vince Cable" title="Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Business Secretary Vince Cable" /></figure></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-nodeimage-title field-type-text field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Business Secretary Vince Cable during a visit to the Ricardo Engine Assembly plant on September 24, 2012 in Shoreham-by-Sea. Photograph: Getty Images.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"> <p>Attempting to predict the issues that are likely to feature in a future general election is as foolhardy as it is difficult. However great the plans of those competing, however well honed their message calendars, the one thing we all know for certain is that events come along like storms in the desert and change the political landscape before our eyes.</p>
<div>
But we speculate anyway, and occasionally we get it right. Probably the surest prediction we can make about the issues likely to be at play in the 2015 general election is that tax policy will feature heavily. <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/ed-miliband-10p-tax-rate-and-mansion-tax-full-text-his-speech">Ed Miliband’s speech</a> yesterday makes that as close to a certainty as possible.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The official Liberal Democrat response to Miliband’s speech was dismissive of his overall proposals: the Liberal Democrats in government have reduced the income tax paid by those on the lowest incomes by more in three years than Labour did in thirteen.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
And the analysis of the speech by the <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6606" target="_blank">Institute for Fiscal Studies</a> supported the party’s assertion that the Lib Dem policy of raising the threshold at which people begin to pay income tax is a less complex and more effective way of helping the low paid than re-introducing the 10p rate.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Yet despite criticising the content, Liberal Democrats will be secretly rather happy with the Labour leader’s speech, for two reasons.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
First, it shifts the political debate to the area where the Lib Dems are at their strongest: tax policy. For whatever else the party has done in government, it is the implementation of a £10,000 tax-free allowance that is cutting through the fog and being recognised by voters as a distinctive achievement.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
In the run-up to the next general election, Liberal Democrats will want to talk of little else. Raising the threshold further – to the level of the average earnings of those on the national minimum wage – is already party policy. The party reasons that the combined message of having delivered the £10,000 threshold and seeking to go further in the next parliament is a very strong one indeed.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The second reason Liberal Democrats will be pleased with the speech is Miliband’s embrace of a mansion tax. You might think that the party would be annoyed by Labour’s blatant theft of one of its key policies, but actually the reverse is true.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The mansion tax is embedded in the minds of the public as a Lib Dem policy. It is unlikely that a random conversion to the merits of the idea will convince voters that if they want a mansion tax they should vote Labour. So by adopting the policy Miliband’s main achievement is to remind voters of the mansion tax, and to increase its importance in the political debate over taxation. Why would Liberal Democrats not welcome such a boost for one of the party’s most distinctive policies?</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Labour's adoption of the policy also helps when it comes to negotiations in the event of another hung parliament, particularly if (as looks distinctly possible) the arithmetic allows for an arrangement between the Liberal Democrats and either Labour or the Tories. Most party members will not welcome Miliband’s change of heart because it is more likely to lead to a Labour-Lib Dem government. Contrary to popular belief, only a small number of party members would actively prefer that option.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Most Liberal Democrats would prefer to enter into an arrangement with whichever party agrees to implement more Lib Dem policies. And just as Labour’s warmer feelings towards electoral reform strengthened the Lib Dem hand in 2010 sufficiently to force the Tories into agreeing a referendum on the alternative vote, so the party’s embrace of a mansion tax makes it more likely that the policy will be implemented if Liberal Democrats end up in government, be it with Labour or the Tories.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Whether Miliband’s speech does Labour any good in the long-term remains to be seen, but Liberal Democrats should welcome it: there is every chance it will help Clegg’s party even more.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>Nick Thornsby is a Liberal Democrat member and activist. His own blog can be found <a href="http://nickthornsby.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">here</a></em></div>
</div></div></div>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:32:18 +0000Nick Thornsby192865 at http://www.newstatesman.comhttp://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/03/coalition-lib-party-option
<div class="field field-name-field-subheadline field-type-text-long field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Why Lib Dem members should support their leadership.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-node-image field-type-image field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><figure class="clearfix field-item even"><img typeof="foaf:Image" class="image-style-fullnode-image" src="http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/styles/fullnode_image/public/articles/2012/20120309_140918255_w.jpg?itok=Xb8EwSRw" width="510" height="348" alt="" /></figure></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"> <!-- Generated by XStandard version 2.0.0.0 on 2012-03-10T09:15:57 --><p>Liberal Left's opposition to the Liberal Democrats' involvement in the coalition, <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/03/liberal-democrats-wing-party" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onkeypress="window.open(this.href);return false;">as set out by here Linda Jack</a>, is based on a number of questionable premises and an unwillingness to consider the realistic alternatives.</p>
<p>The group's vice-chair, Richard Grayson, criticises what he sees as the party's change of view on the deficit. He is wrong. Pre-election, Vince Cable's key message on the deficit was that a judgement on the timing of austerity had to be based on economics rather than politics or ideology. On that basis, in the run up to the election, the party adopted the working assumption that cuts would start in earnest in 2011-12, with some savings made immediately as a "down payment".</p>
<p>Yet by the time of the coalition negotiations the economic situation had changed. Alistair Darling was attending emergency meetings in Brussels as the threat of contagion loomed large over Europe. With one of Europe's biggest budget deficits, Britain was in a perilous position. And it's for this reason that the party's judgement changed. And in my view we've been proved right - yes, the economy might be growing more slowly than we would like, but the deficit is coming down and we avoided being caught in the centre of the fiscal crisis that spread through Europe.</p>
<p>And there is a more compelling reason why Liberal Left are wrong to oppose our involvement in the coalition: the alternatives would have been much, much worse.</p>
<p>A coalition with Labour and a number of the smaller parties in Parliament was never a serious proposition, both because of the numerical difficulties and because of Labour's intransigence. In hindsight it's clear that most in the Labour party weren't interested in joining a coalition. They'd rather be in opposition.</p>
<p>A confidence and supply arrangement was another option, but in my view those who think this would have been better for either the country or the Lib Dems are mistaken; it would have all the downsides of coalition with few of the benefits.</p>
<p>That left only a coalition or a minority Tory administration. Within weeks of forming a minority government, George Osborne would have produced the most populist, tax-cutting budget imaginable and, when it failed to get through the Commons, David Cameron would have visited Her Majesty, Parliament would have been dissolved and a new general election - probably in autumn 2010 - would have ensued. And at this point, both Labour and the Tories would have had one message: "it's time for you to vote for one of us - the Lib Dems have rejected the option of power". The Lib Dems would have been squeezed like never before; every marginal - virtually every Lib Dem seat - would be vulnerable. We'd have been reduced to a miniscule Parliamentary Party.</p>
<p>And the Tories would have got their majority. Even the most anti-coalition of Lib Dems can't seriously say that that would have been a preferable option.</p>
<p>The combination of being in government and being members of a truly democratic party leaves Lib Dem members with an immense amount of influence. We should use it as best we can to make this government is fair and as liberal as possible - not blindly supporting but constructively engaging, working with Lib Dem ministers, who we know to be honest, caring liberals, to achieve as much as possible.</p>
<p>We won't always get our own way, as we shouldn't as a party that received 22 per cent of the vote and fewer than one in ten seats in the Commons at the last election. But we are punching above our weight to i<a href="http://www.markpack.org.uk/libdem-infographic/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onkeypress="window.open(this.href);return false;">mplement hundreds of long-standing party policies</a>.</p>
<p>Going into coalition was the best option for the Liberal Democrats and for the country, and the arguments why remain just as compelling today as they did on 11 May 2010. Party members must concentrate on making it work, for the country and for the party. Opposing from the sidelines is no solution at all.</p>
<p><em>Nick Thornsby is a Liberal Democrat member and activist. His own blog can be found <a href="http://nickthornsby.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onkeypress="window.open(this.href);return false;">here</a></em></p>
</div></div></div>Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:16:47 +0000Nick Thornsby183590 at http://www.newstatesman.comhttp://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/09/party-liberal-necessary
<div class="field field-name-field-subheadline field-type-text-long field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>There needs to be a fundamental political repositioning of the Lib Dems</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-node-image field-type-image field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><figure class="clearfix field-item even"><img typeof="foaf:Image" class="image-style-fullnode-image" src="http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/styles/fullnode_image/public/articles/2011/20110921_125625923_w.jpg?itok=rgwpffJA" width="510" height="348" title="width" /></figure></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"> <!-- Generated by XStandard version 2.0.0.0 on 2011-09-21T11:28:01 --><p>One word that has been uttered time and again at this year's autumn Liberal Democrat conference is this: 'differentiation'. This is, in simple terms, the strategy that Liberal Democrats in government are now pursuing: highlighting much more openly the areas where the two coalition parties disagree. It's one of the reasons, incidentally, why this year's conference has been rather unexpectedly upbeat, because, for the first time in a while, there is a strategy in place to which both the party leadership and ordinary members subscribe.</p>
<p>But while differentiation - <a href="(http://bit.ly/oOHKFa)" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onkeypress="window.open(this.href);return false;">if done properly</a> - is certainly necessary, it is by no means sufficient. After all, if disagreeing with the Conservatives was all we had to do for electoral success, the Liberal Democrats would have had parliamentary majorities since the party's formation.</p>
<p>Actually, what is now needed is something much more difficult than mere differentiation, tough though that in itself is to get right. What's needed is a deep and fundamental repositioning of the Liberal Democrats within British politics.</p>
<p>Such a process won't be easy, because it will involve accepting difficult truths - the most crucial of which is that many, if not most, of those who voted Liberal Democrat because they saw us as an uncompromised version of the Labour party will not be coming back to us any time soon. Many of them will go back to supporting a Labour party relishing the easy populism of opposition, while the ones that see any electoral compromise as a sin - the protest voters - will go and support smaller parties like the Greens.</p>
<p>Thankfully, though, the sort of strategising necessary to reposition the party seems already to be taking place. When I interviewed him on Sunday, Nick Clegg clearly had a vision about where he wants to take the party over the next few years, even if it is one that is not yet completely formed. He sums up how he wants the party to be seen quite pithily: more economically responsible than Labour and more socially just than the Conservatives.</p>
<p>This is an idea that has a lot of merit in my view, though it would be more effective if it wasn't expressed relative to the positions of the other parties. Developing the language necessary to clearly communicate this idea without borrowing the language of the other parties will take time, but fortunately that is something we have got.</p>
<p>Those political commentators who take a more intelligent approach to the Liberal Democrats are also beginning to see promise in the green shoots of this new strategy - take Mary Ann Sieghart in Monday's <em><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mary-ann-sieghart/mary-ann-sieghart-cleggs-chance-to-fill-a-central-vacancy-2356878.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onkeypress="window.open(this.href);return false;">Independent</a></em>, for example.</p>
<p>Much of the analysis of Nick Clegg's speech to conference today will focus on what he has to say about his coalition colleagues. What I will be listening out for, though, is not about what he says about the present, but hints about his vision for the future.</p>
<p><em>Nick Thornsby is a Liberal Democrat member and activist. His own blog can be found <a href="http://nickthornsby.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onkeypress="window.open(this.href);return false;">here</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:28:19 +0000Nick Thornsby40850 at http://www.newstatesman.comhttp://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/09/clegg-idea-government-guest
<div class="field field-name-field-subheadline field-type-text-long field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Clegg was supportive of the idea of accelerating the move to a £10,000 personal allowance.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-node-image field-type-image field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><figure class="clearfix field-item even"><img typeof="foaf:Image" class="image-style-fullnode-image" src="http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/styles/fullnode_image/public/articles/2011/20110918_125527522_w.jpg?itok=osDRyPQK" width="510" height="348" title="width" /></figure></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"> <!-- Generated by XStandard version 2.0.0.0 on 2011-09-18T19:58:15 --><p>Today marked the real start of conference, with a full day's worth of debates and speeches in the auditorium, and a packed schedule of fringe events.</p>
<p>Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was one of those who made a speech, announcing the government's plan to employ an additional 2,000 tax inspectors to tackle tax evasion and raise revenues.</p>
<p>He also announced that the party is considering going into the next general election with a pledge to increase the threshold at which people begin to pay income tax even higher than the £10,000 which the party promised last year and which the government is currently implementing.</p>
<p>Coincidentally, it was on the topic of the income tax threshold that I questioned Nick Clegg when I joined three fellow bloggers to take part in an interview earlier today. Given the squeeze on living standards that is currently taking place, it strikes me as an <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-time-for-that-lib-dem-tax-cut-in-full-24409.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onkeypress="window.open(this.href);return false;">excellent idea</a> for the coalition to move faster on this policy than was originally planned.</p>
<p>Not only would such a move assist those on low incomes who feel the effects of inflation most acutely, but it would also help the economy by stimulating demand. Clegg was sympathetic to the idea: "In an ideal world we would accelerate the shift to £10,000, for economic reasons [and because] it is socially the right thing to do".</p>
<p>However, he cautioned that this is something that the government is not currently planning, though I think that's undoubtedly more to do with the naturally conservative nature of the Treasury - particularly in times of fiscal crisis - than a lack of desire on the part of Liberal Democrats in government to make such a change. I wouldn't rule it out altogether, though, particularly if inflation remains high.</p>
<p>I also managed to get a seat in an excellent fringe event on the topic of phone-hacking and other related privacy and media issues, at which the star guest was Hugh Grant. Last time we held our conference in Birmingham in March 2010, the most high-profile guest I spotted was Clare Short - how times change.</p>
<p><em>Nick Thornsby is a Liberal Democrat member and activist. His own blog can be found <a href="http://nickthornsby.wordpress.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onkeypress="window.open(this.href);return false;">here</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div>Sun, 18 Sep 2011 19:58:16 +0000Nick Thornsby40791 at http://www.newstatesman.comhttp://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/09/conference-liberal-downsides
<div class="field field-name-field-subheadline field-type-text-long field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The upside of power. And a couple of downsides, too.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-node-image field-type-image field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><figure class="clearfix field-item even"><img typeof="foaf:Image" class="image-style-fullnode-image" src="http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/styles/fullnode_image/public/articles/2011/20110917_125418008_%281%29_w.jpg?itok=4fVfem6o" width="510" height="348" title="width" /></figure></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"> <!-- Generated by XStandard version 2.0.0.0 on 2011-09-18T13:45:43 --><p>It's a mere 18 months since the Liberal Democrats last gathered at Birmingham's shiny International Conference Centre, but the circumstances in which we now meet could scarcely be more different.</p>
<p>Liberal Democrats are still getting used to the novelty of walking around the various conference buildings and bumping into ministers of state. It'll take us a little while longer until that feels normal.</p>
<p>What has sunk in, though, is that the policy issues we mere members debate and vote on at conference don't just make it into a manifesto in a few years time any more -- they now directly affect the decisions our ministers make when they get back to their departments. This increased influence, combined with the democratic nature of our party, makes Liberal Democrat conference a uniquely powerful force compared to those of the other main parties.</p>
<p>However, while being a party of government brings with it obvious advantages, there are also some downsides. The well-documented issues over conference security and the accreditation process for delegates are particularly pertinent examples, though such a tightening of security was both inevitable and understandable.</p>
<p>Another downside is that our (often rather unedifying) bunfights -- an integral but not always welcome part of any Lib Dem gathering -- now attract rather more attention than they used to. And this year we didn't delay, with the increasingly-dominant Social Liberal Forum's attempt to force a debate and vote on (yet another) NHS motion causing a floor fight and counted vote.</p>
<p>Yet just as tighter security is the price we pay for being in power, such unglamorous arguments are the price we pay for maintaining an internal party democracy -- and it's one that most party members think is worth paying.</p>
<p>The conference rally -- which is, in my view at least, the real start of conference -- will be getting underway shortly. The Liberal Democrats have been blessed with a disproportionately high number of very funny MPs (Tim Farron and Don Foster are two of my favourites), and tonight it's the turn of Alistair Carmichael to amuse the gathered crowd.</p>
<p>I'll be counting just how many times Lembit Opik forms the butt of a joke -- though I hear Chris Huhne might have that misfortune this time, too.</p>
<p><em>Nick Thornsby is a Liberal Democrat member and activist. His <a href="http://nickthornsby.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onkeypress="window.open(this.href);return false;">own blog can be found here</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div>Sat, 17 Sep 2011 18:41:55 +0000Nick Thornsby40785 at http://www.newstatesman.com